What I am saying is that the clinics lead to conflation of "women's" gear, and that unless the client studies bootfitting for herself, she will not know which fall under the positive design umbrella and which don't. The above example is obvious only because I selected it for absurdity.

The point I was trying to get at in my earlier posts is exactly this one...except from the opposite perspective. I think most people (both men and women) don't want to study bootfitting (or much else really). So, which is more likely to work for a woman who doesn't study boot fitting? A unisex boot, or a woman's boot? If we believe the numbers being bandied about here...the woman's got an 80% chance of the generic woman's boot being better for her than a unisex boot.

Jim, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You regularly turn down proposals from happy customers. You advocate for choices in appropriately fitting equipment for each individual, regardless of gender, on behalf of the consumer, your customers et al ? You believe in providing education to the female populace, thus allowing them intelluctual entrance into informed and thoughtful retail consumption ? And to think, all this time I've thought you were just a really great guy.

Certainly not. However, without the significant marketing draw, that lady might never have come to my store or any store at all. She may not have believed that her gear might be holding her back. She might have gone through the next several years with the attitude that "(sigh) my gear is just fine honey....you go ski and have fun...I'll be OK"

The power of a woman addresssing a woman at their own level is beyond price. Often times they just don't trust us guys.

Jim, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You regularly turn down proposals from happy customers. You advocate for choices in appropriately fitting equipment for each individual, regardless of gender, on behalf of the consumer, your customers et al ? You believe in providing education to the female populace, thus allowing them intelluctual entrance into informed and thoughtful retail consumption ? And to think, all this time I've thought you were just a really great guy.

The point I was trying to get at in my earlier posts is exactly this one...except from the opposite perspective. I think most people (both men and women) don't want to study bootfitting (or much else really). So, which is more likely to work for a woman who doesn't study boot fitting? A unisex boot, or a woman's boot? If we believe the numbers being bandied about here...the woman's got an 80% chance of the generic woman's boot being better for her than a unisex boot.

The reason this argument works on paper is that it selects from a general pool of all women.

What it does not do is select from a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals.

I submit to you that, within a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals, chances are that there are problems in the boot fit other than the ones specifically traceable to womens' anatomy.

The reason this argument works on paper is that it selects from a general pool of all women.

What it does not do is select from a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals.

I submit to you that, within a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals, chances are that there are problems in the boot fit other than the ones specifically traceable to womens' anatomy.

[quote=comprex;970307]

quote]

Comprex considering the examples you've submitted, I'd surmise you are correct. Going out on a limb here, I'm guessing you probably can't even shell fit these boots ? It's a go by "how does that feel ?" kinda thing ?

Back to the original question, women’s gear sucks because most women don’t care. Same reason my wife who has skied for 40 years could not care less about this forum. She’s small, athletic and wants one pair of skis that will take her anywhere she wants to go. She has no interest in a quiver. She is interested in performance but if the color clashed with her favorite outfit she would not ski on it if it were free. She thinks boots and skis need to be neutral colors so they will go with everything she wears. She’s not really a clothes horse she is just conscious of what she wears and does not feel comfortable if it does not suite her eye. She will never demo and will spend more time buying new gloves than new skis because she thinks that keeping her hands warm has more to do with her skiing enjoyment than floating, carving or jumping. Same goes for boots. Warmth and comfort first, don’t clash with my outfit second and then price. She doesn’t/can’t flex any of them much so she doesn’t think it matters much. And this is not a person who is a fair weather skier. She's never wimped out on a ski day in the 25 years I've known her. I think there are enough of the women’s market that think like my wife that it ruins it for the few ladies who are gear heads and enjoy the process of looking for the best performance, not just the most comfort.

Comprex considering the examples you've submitted, I'd surmise you are correct. Going out on a limb here, I'm guessing you probably can't even shell fit these boots ? It's a go by "how does that feel ?" kinda thing ?

That one is easy to shake heads over.

The tough ones are the ones a sales person missed the first go-round, did that same person study up when the lady client thinks it's time to give JT's theories a try?

And that is the trouble with

Quote:

... the significant marketing draw, that lady might never have come to my store or any store at all. She may not have beleived that her gear might be holding her back. She might have gone through the next several years with the attitude that "(sigh) my gear is just fine honey....you go ski and have fun...I'll be OK"

The power of a woman addresssing a woman at their own level is beyond price. Often times they just don't trust us guys.

See that trust misfire and then try to get them to ANOTHER fitting, by the guy they should have seen in the first place. Dreadful.

I have no idea why you are trying soooo hard to debunk the value of an incredible resource but............

Quote:

The reason this argument works on paper is that it selects from a general pool of all women.

Of course. Duh!!....This is a marketing program by nature and it must address the general population.

What it does not do is select from a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals.

Correct, it is general not specific in it's selection process. However, the crux of the presentation is...."if this, this or this is giving you trouble, there may be an equipment related problem that is fixable.

I submit to you that, within a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals, chances are that there are problems in the boot fit other than the ones specifically traceable to womens' anatomy.

Talk about straw man arguments! JT does not suggest cookie cutter fixes for anything. Fit issues are dealt with seperately from the women's specific and biomechanical issues.

Here is the way it works......When the lady takes off her shoes and socks, JT looks over the foot while she is asking the questions about her skiing challenges etc. If the foot is bad....ie: oddball shape, bunions, mortons toe, surf knots, seven toes, whatever....she alerts me or Katie or Tyler. We'll jump over and take a look and say "OK she needs this or that boot, and we'll have to do this or that to work around the fit issues." BTW, we'd better warmup the Superfeet oven".

Comprex, I know you and respect you, but I also know that many of the women who surround me fit in the 80% that is well served by Jeannie's vision. She, herself, says that there is 10% on one end of the spectrum, and 10% on the other end of the spectrum that won't want or need the "stuff". However, there is much credibility in the basic laws of physics that factor into the dynamics.

Back to the original question, women’s gear sucks because most women don’t care. Same reason my wife who has skied for 40 years could not care less about this forum. She’s small, athletic and wants one pair of skis that will take her anywhere she wants to go. She has no interest in a quiver. She is interested in performance but if the color clashed with her favorite outfit she would not ski on it if it were free. She thinks boots and skis need to be neutral colors so they will go with everything she wears. She’s not really a clothes horse she is just conscious of what she wears and does not feel comfortable if it does not suite her eye. She will never demo and will spend more time buying new gloves than new skis because she thinks that keeping her hands warm has more to do with her skiing enjoyment than floating, carving or jumping. Same goes for boots. Warmth and comfort first, don’t clash with my outfit second and then price. She doesn’t/can’t flex any of them much so she doesn’t think it matters much. And this is not a person who is a fair weather skier. She's never wimped out on a ski day in the 25 years I've known her. I think there are enough of the women’s market that think like my wife that it ruins it for the few ladies who are gear heads and enjoy the process of looking for the best performance, not just the most comfort.

Back to the original question, women’s gear sucks because most women don’t care. Same reason my wife who has skied for 40 years could not care less about this forum. She’s small, athletic and wants one pair of skis that will take her anywhere she wants to go. She has no interest in a quiver. She is interested in performance but if the color clashed with her favorite outfit she would not ski on it if it were free. She thinks boots and skis need to be neutral colors so they will go with everything she wears. She’s not really a clothes horse she is just conscious of what she wears and does not feel comfortable if it does not suite her eye. She will never demo and will spend more time buying new gloves than new skis because she thinks that keeping her hands warm has more to do with her skiing enjoyment than floating, carving or jumping. Same goes for boots. Warmth and comfort first, don’t clash with my outfit second and then price. She doesn’t/can’t flex any of them much so she doesn’t think it matters much. And this is not a person who is a fair weather skier. She's never wimped out on a ski day in the 25 years I've known her. I think there are enough of the women’s market that think like my wife that it ruins it for the few ladies who are gear heads and enjoy the process of looking for the best performance, not just the most comfort.

OK, so apparently there are two wives out there that fit this. But mine, in truth, is neither like this nor a gearhead (she leaves that to me). She DOES worry about the precise fit and flex of the boot, she DOES takes lessons and wants to carve well, and she DOES NOT buy equipment on the basis of looks. But OTOH, she cares more than me about warm gloves and comfortable boots, spends more time at lunch, graphics do matter if all else is equal. Yet like ST's wife, she will ski in just about any conditions and try just about any terrain once. Suspect at a higher level of skill, a lot of the women who populate Ski Diva are like her.

Lesson: I'd worry about phrases like "most women" or "few ladies" forming any premise. Especially from a non-woman.

I submit to you that, within a pool of women who have difficulty achieving skiing goals, chances are that there are problems in the boot fit other than the ones specifically traceable to womens' anatomy.

I don't disagree...but I submit in return that the pool of women with skiing goals is a small minority of the pool of women who ski.

I bought those boots five years ago for $20. My first boots. Won't make a mistake like that again. I knew nothing about gear, and was new to skiing. The boots adjusted well to my feet, and felt good in the shop, and looked good! But they did not flex forward (I didn't know this was important), and they were technically outdated in a number of other ways when I bought them but I didn't know that. The guy in the shop sold them to me because I knew nothing, and I was an easy customer, and he was out of other boots that would fit my feet comfortably. He took advantage of me, but only for $20.

Now I know who he is as a salesman, am wary about the shop. I also now know who I am as a skier. This feels so much better.

Certainly not. However, without the significant marketing draw, that lady might never have come to my store or any store at all. She may not have believed that her gear might be holding her back. She might have gone through the next several years with the attitude that "(sigh) my gear is just fine honey....you go ski and have fun...I'll be OK"

The power of a woman addresssing a woman at their own level is beyond price. Often times they just don't trust us guys.

(at least until we touch their feet)..............

SJ

Ahhh, yes, the touching of the feet.
Even an incompetent bootfitter gets
to touch the feet, and, well, it's all
downhill after that.

Back to the original question, women’s gear sucks because most women don’t care. Same reason my wife who has skied for 40 years could not care less about this forum. She’s small, athletic and wants one pair of skis that will take her anywhere she wants to go. She has no interest in a quiver. She is interested in performance but if the color clashed with her favorite outfit she would not ski on it if it were free. She thinks boots and skis need to be neutral colors so they will go with everything she wears. She’s not really a clothes horse she is just conscious of what she wears and does not feel comfortable if it does not suite her eye. She will never demo and will spend more time buying new gloves than new skis because she thinks that keeping her hands warm has more to do with her skiing enjoyment than floating, carving or jumping. Same goes for boots. Warmth and comfort first, don’t clash with my outfit second and then price. She doesn’t/can’t flex any of them much so she doesn’t think it matters much. And this is not a person who is a fair weather skier. She's never wimped out on a ski day in the 25 years I've known her. I think there are enough of the women’s market that think like my wife that it ruins it for the few ladies who are gear heads and enjoy the process of looking for the best performance, not just the most comfort.

This description fits my wife, and her skiing female friends.

None are hard-charging skiers, but they're competent. Like most women, they all use "female" equipment.

The annoyance experienced and expressed here by women at wimpy female-specific designs is understandable. But, few woman share this view.

How can you tell? Look at the lift line. How many women are on unisex skis? Less than 5%?

That doesn't mean the 5% are wrong, or their opinions don't matter. They're just too small in number to be a factor in equipment design and marketing decisions.

Consider the exponential proliferation of "female" designs in boots and skis, and their prevalence on the hill. It's what women want, and what they buy.

This situation may be frustrating for performance-oriented females. But, majority rules.

Cause for Hope: It seems a small portion of female equipment is finally targeting high-performance women.

This situation may be frustrating for performance-oriented females. But, majority rules.

Cause for Hope: It seems a small portion of female equipment is finally targeting high-performance women.

Not frustrating at all. It just opens tons of options up.

Example:
If I go skiing with my two sisters and IceLady, all three of them will be on womens' skis with fwd mount. (Not sure about their boot set ups). I may or may not be on women's skis, Likely not.
This makes me happy because we all have choices, and my sisters are out there with me, because they're on equipment they like.

Those who are frustrated are the ski shops who have to carry a lot more inventory.

Generalizations?????

Those who are frustrated are the ski shops who have to carry a lot more inventory.

I agree! Our shops don't carry lots of women specific stuff.

But I think "most" or "many" is relative. Here at Squaw, I'd say most women use unisex equipment, many have junior race boots with a lower cuff height and a 90-100 flex. One exception in skis "could" be the K2 line of Luvs...see lots of those.

I do see lots of men that need a softer-flex boot or a softer shorter ski.

For sure that generalization is closer to true than some might think but Squaw is not the real world. It is a small slice of the general skiing population. Even within that microcosm, you'll see a very different mix of gear on the women that are in the lift lines @ KT vs. the lift lines at Shirley.

Ironically, the K2 models that do have some traction within that crowd are far from the highest performance women's skis available. Yet...there they are and those women "LUV" them. That should tell us all something.

For sure that generalization is closer to true than some might think but Squaw is not the real world. It is a small slice of the general skiing population. Even within that microcosm, you'll see a very different mix of gear on the women that are in the lift lines @ KT vs. the lift lines at Shirley.

Ironically, the K2 models that do have some traction within that crowd are far from the highest performance women's skis available. Yet...there they are and those women "LUV" them. That should tell us all something.

SJ

How true This is starting to sound like "Who's on First"! Like the weather, I think typical is non-typical.

I know it's been a while since this was discussed, but I think this discussion is worth reviving:
(Tis the season to buy gear without demoing after all)

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier31

It is always amazing to me when there is a thread about women specific issue that many of the responses are from men who make sweeping generalizations about issues on which they know nothing about.

Yes. This is really what's most frustrating about the women's gear phenomenon. It's all too common that men buy gear for the women in their lives without any knowledge or experience of said women's gear!

While well-intentioned and sweet, this gesture makes the presumption that all women are built the same, require the same materials, etc., and leaves a bunch of guys standing around with Joe talking about what's best for Jane, when no one but Jane or her girlfriends has experienced any of the gear they're discussing.

Frustrating for Jane, who, of course, knows enough to encourage Joe to buy her ski gear, but doesn't know how to politely reject the meh selection he and Jack, John, and Jim have picked out!

As a lady who was a reluctant convert to women's gear, I thought I'd add my two cents.

For those of you who are turned off by the flowers and hearts found on many ladies' skis, check out the Blizzard line. A few years ago they were pretty girlie, but the 09-10 line looks more like a set of sophisticated cocktail dresses. Black, white, silver, gold, and they rip. I skied the Viva 7.6 last year in a 170 and am planning on skiing the Viva 8.1 IQ Max in a 172 next season. The only difference between the Magnum 8.1 (unisex) and the Viva 8.1 are the graphics, or at least that's my understanding. Quite frankly, I think if you told a man that Viva was Italian for studly, men wouldn't think twice about the graphics. I'd ski either ski, but I'm a woman, so I'm going with the women's line.

If you're finding that women's skis are too soft for you, consider a longer length. I think a lot of people, especially in the east are skiing skis that are way too short. If you want stability without stiffness, longer is the way to go.

Almost off topic, but equally important, we need to do a better job educating women about gear from the beginning. I teach skiing full time and cannot tell you how many women have had their day ruined by boots that were too big. Rental shops are not going to order men's and ladies boots, so we need to be sure to spread the message that if you are a lady- downsize. An interesting theory that I share with my mother (who took part in a Thoren clinic back in the day) is that many women are in boots that are too big. Mounting the bindings forward gets the middle of your foot over the middle of the ski. If your boots fit, you don't need to forward mount, though if you like it, go for it. Women's skis are now designed to flex further forward, so I keep the bindings where Blizzard says they go.

Buy what you like. There's a man on our staff out there on a pair of lady Blizzards, (ones from the year that a pair was one red one and one white) and he loves them. He's about 5' and as bow legged as they come. He told me "they danced" and gave the graphics no regard.

4) So I went and bought boots - Salomon Divine 6, 26.5. After 3 boot fitting sessions - they are now SWEET and PERFECT and OMG! These are a female boot, they are white and have black centres and some silver scrolls/flowers. Yes they are NICE but they are also Storm-Troopery. I had no say in these boots. The boot fitter did it all. didn't even have the choice to chose one out of a few. He said, "These are the boots that will fit your calf, suit your inflexible toes and ankles, plus your stiff soleus/achilles." He's the expert. Mind you, I did buy the matching Salomon poles Such a girl!

5) He put me on Volkl Sol - I DO NOT LIKE the graphics - PINKISH PURPLE! UUURRGGHHH. Loved the ski though. He was right about the ski too. IN COMPARISON to the unisex rental (K2 Comanches) anything almost would have been better

7) went demoing last weekend.... (actually yesterday). The shop didn't have any women's skis - and this is my point ....

***

Until this point, it's been SUPER easy for me to research women's only skis. To find specific reviews etc etc - because that is how the companies are full-on marketing their gear.

I had no easy way to sypher through and sort out such an overwhelming array and variety. TIMES HAVE CHANGED!!!! I last skiied on straight 175s! STRAIGHT!!!!

***

7 cont.)

At George's Ski Hire, the lovely youngish lad in the shop said, "We don't have anything in right now that you're asking about in your length, it's all out on the mountain. BUT, I think you will really really enjoy this ski." All this, of course, after listening to my wants .....

And he pulled out Fischer Watea 84 159s

So, once again I listened to a passionate expert....

AND SUPER ZOMG!

8) these skis are FOR ME! Fischer call these "Expert Men". SkiMag Canada calls them Adv Men. Some SkiDivas call them Unisex. It matters not! Not too keen on their looks ... it's not going to stop me from buying them now I have skiied them!

9) The Fischer importer here into Aust was trying to tell me that the Koa 84 is the SAME ski, just different top sheets for ladies. But it is NOT. Look at the construction!

The men's has 2 i-beams running lengthways. The female version does not. Also the female version is CAD 60 or so cheaper. Does this seem to you as though the ski has been "softened/dumbed down" to supposedly suit the ladies? Love Epic's opinion on this.

Ok rant over:

Short version:

I was lucky. Have found 2 different experts pointing me in directions, who listened and have given me great choice.

I am all for specific gear, but I am also proof that the ladies boot fits perfectly and a men's ski makes the whole kit come alive!